Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    Procedural Infirmities

    Uploaded by

    Rheinhart Pahila
    The document discusses several cases that establish the principles that procedural technicalities should not override substantive rights and the interests of justice. Courts have the discretion to relax procedural rules in exceptional cases to prevent grave injustices. Reasons for relaxing rules include matters involving life, liberty, or property, compelling circumstances where strict adherence would deprive a party of their day in court, and cases where justice would be frustrated rather than promoted by rigid application of the rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Procedural Infirmities

    Uploaded by

    Rheinhart Pahila
    39 views2 pages
    The document discusses several cases that establish the principles that procedural technicalities should not override substantive rights and the interests of justice. Courts have the discretion to relax procedural rules in exceptional cases to prevent grave injustices. Reasons for relaxing rules include matters involving life, liberty, or property, compelling circumstances where strict adherence would deprive a party of their day in court, and cases where justice would be frustrated rather than promoted by rigid application of the rules.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Procedural-infirmities

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses several cases that establish the principles that procedural technicalities should not override substantive rights and the interests of justice. Courts have the discretion to relax procedural rules in exceptional cases to prevent grave injustices. Reasons for relaxing rules include matters involving life, liberty, or property, compelling circumstances where strict adherence would deprive a party of their day in court, and cases where justice would be frustrated rather than promoted by rigid application of the rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    39 views2 pages

    Procedural Infirmities

    Uploaded by

    Rheinhart Pahila
    The document discusses several cases that establish the principles that procedural technicalities should not override substantive rights and the interests of justice. Courts have the discretion to relax procedural rules in exceptional cases to prevent grave injustices. Reasons for relaxing rules include matters involving life, liberty, or property, compelling circumstances where strict adherence would deprive a party of their day in court, and cases where justice would be frustrated rather than promoted by rigid application of the rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Heirs of Juan M. Dinglasan v. Ayala Corporation, et al.

    , supra note 31, citing


    Neypes v. Court of Appeals, 506 Phil. 613, 626 (2005).

    In setting aside the aforementioned technicalities, infirmities, and thereby giving due
    course to tardy appeals and defective petitions, it must be emphasized that the Court is
    mindful of the extraordinary situations that merit liberal application of the Rules. In
    this case where technicalities were dispensed with, the Court's decisions were not
    meant to undermine the force and effectivity of the periods set by the law.

    On the contrary, in those rare instances, there always existed a clear need to prevent
    the commission of a grave injustice as in this case. Our judicial system and the
    courts have always tried to maintain a healthy balance between the strict enforcement
    of procedural laws and the guarantee that every litigant be given the full opportunity for
    the just and proper disposition of his cause.

    Villanueva v. People, 659 Phil. 418, 429 (2011)

    It is worth emphasizing that the rule which states that the mistakes of counsel bind
    the client may not be strictly followed where observance of it would result in
    outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property, or where the interests of
    justice so require. In rendering justice, procedural infirmities take a backseat against
    substantive rights of litigants. Corollarily, if the strict application of the rules would tend
    to frustrate rather than promote justice, the Court is not without power to exercise its
    judicial discretion in relaxing the rules of procedure.

    JOEL F. LATOGAN, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, January 22, 2020, G.R. No.
    238298

    The counsel's mere failure to observe a modicum of care and vigilance in the protection
    of the interests of the petitioner as the client, as manifested in the multiple procedural
    infirmities and shortcomings herein, is gross negligence. If the incompetence of
    counsel was so serious that the client was prejudiced by a denial of his day in
    court, the latter must be given another chance to present his case.

    Sanchez v. Court of Appeals 452 Phil. 665 (2003)

    The Court restated the reasons that may provide justification for a court to suspend a
    strict adherence to procedural rules, such as: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or
    property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the
    case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored
    by the suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is
    merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) the fact that the other party will not be unjustly
    prejudiced thereby.

    Gerales v. Court of Appeals, 291-A Phil. 674, 682 (1993)

    Suits should as much as possible be decided on the merits and not on


    technicalities. In this regard, we have often admonished courts to be liberal in setting
    aside orders of default as default judgments are frowned upon and not looked upon with
    favor for they may amount to a positive and considerable injustice to the defendant and
    the possibility of such serious consequences necessitates a careful examination of the
    grounds upon which the defendant asks that it be set aside.

    Since rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, it
    is well recognized that this Court is empowered to suspend its operation, or except a
    particular case from its operation, when the rigid application thereof tends to frustrate
    rather than promote the ends of justice.

    Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 336 Phil. 33, 48 (1997)

    Since rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, it
    is well recognized that this Court is empowered to suspend its operation, or except a
    particular case from its operation, when the rigid application thereof tends to
    frustrate rather than promote the ends of justice.

    You might also like